Qinetiq Limited v. Oclaro Inc.

Filing 77

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS re 75 Stipulation filed by Oclaro Inc., Qinetiq Limited, 76 Stipulation filed by Oclaro Inc., Qinetiq Limited. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/19/10. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Willam S. Coats (State Bar No. 94864) william.coats@kayescholer.com Taryn Lam (State Bar No. 236124) taryn.lam@kayescholer.com KAYE SCHOLER LLP 275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205 Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: (650) 319-4500 Facsimile: (650) 319-4700 James S. Blank (pro hac vice) jblank@kayescholer.com Stephen J. Elliott (pro hac vice) selliott@kayescholer.com KAYE SCHOLER LLP 425 Park Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 836-7528 Facscimile: (212) 836-6507 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant QINETIQ LIMITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION QINETIQ LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. OCLARO INC., Defendant. _________________________________ AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:10-cv-00080-SBA (EMC) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Case No. 4:10-cv-00080-SBA (EMC) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff QinetiQ Limited ("QinetiQ") and Defendant Oclaro Inc. ("Oclaro"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on June 28, 2010, QinetiQ filed its Motion for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions (the "Motion"); WHEREAS, the Motion seeks the Court's adjudication of the parties' disputes concerning the following issues relating to QinetiQ's Infringement Contentions: Issue No. 1: Whether QinetiQ was required to disclose in its Infringement Contentions the claim limitations in the patents-in-suit that it contends are governed by 35 U.S.C. 112(6). Issue No. 2: Whether QinetiQ properly reserved in its Infringement Contentions its right to assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Issue No. 3: Whether QinetiQ was required to disclose dates of conception and reduction to practice in its Infringement Contentions. Issue No. 4: To the extent that the Court finds any deficiencies in QinetiQ's Infringement Contentions relating to (1), (2) or (3) above, whether QinetiQ should be granted leave to amend its Infringement Contentions to address them. Issue No. 5: Whether QinetiQ should be granted leave to amend its infringement contentions to include disclosure of certain experimental apparatus and prototypes used to reduce to practice the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit. WHEREAS, The parties have reached a mutually agreeable resolution of Issue Nos. 1 through 4 that moots those Issues and obviates the need for Court intervention regarding Issue Nos. 1 through 4; WHEREAS, via a letter dated July 21, 2010, QinetiQ provided Oclaro with QinetiQ's proposed amendment with respect to Issue No. 5 (the "Proposed Amendment"); WHEREAS, Oclaro does not oppose QinetiQ's amendment of its Infringement Contentions to reflect the Proposed Amendment; 1 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Case No. 4:10-cv-00080-SBA (EMC) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate to QinetiQ's amendment of its Infringement Contentions to change its Patent Local Rule 3-1(g) contention to the following: "QinetiQ reserves the right to rely on the assertion that the following apparatus, product, device, process, method, act or other instrumentality incorporates or reflects the identified claim: Apparatus, Product, Device, Process, Method, Act or Other Instrumentality Apparatus, products, devices, processes, methods and activities identified and described at QPROD0001429-33, QPROD001439-40, QPROD0001459-1522 and QPROD0002076-2082 Apparatus, products, devices, processes, methods and activities identified and described at QPROD0001611-25 and QPROD0001459-1522 Apparatus, products, devices, processes, methods and activities identified and described at QPROD0001434-38, QPROD0001459-1522, QPROD0001633-40, and QPROD0002082-84 Apparatus, products, devices, processes, methods and activities identified and described at QPROD0001434-38, QPROD0001459-1522 and QPROD0001633-40 Apparatus, products, devices, processes, methods and activities identified and described at QPROD0001434-38, QPROD0001459-1522 and QPROD0001633-40 Apparatus, products, devices, processes, methods and activities identified and described at QPROD0001434-38, QPROD0001459-1522, QPROD0001633-40 and QPROD0001913-18 Claims '625 Patent, Claim 1 '625 Patent, Claims 4, 5, and 7 '698 Patent, Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 '698 Patent, Claims 16 and 17 '698 Patent, Claims 5, 6 and 9 '354 Patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED. Dated: August 18, 2010 KAYE SCHOLER LLP By: /s/ Taryn Lam Taryn Lam Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant QINETIQ LIMITED 2 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Case No. 4:10-cv-00080-SBA (EMC) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: August 18, 2010 COOLEY LLP By: /s/ Orion Armon Orion Armon (pro hac vice) Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant OCLARO INC. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED: UNIT ED S 8/19/10 Dated:___________________ ISTRIC ES D TC T TA The 9/8/10 and 9/29/10 hearing dates are vacated. F ATTESTATION D I S CLAUSE T O T RIC ER N I, Taryn Lam, hereby attest in accordance with General Order No. 45.X(B) that Orion Armon, counsel for Defendant and Counterclaimant Oclaro Inc., has provided his concurrence with the electronic filing of the foregoing document entitled STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS. Dated: August 18, 2010 By: /s/ Taryn Lam Taryn Lam 3 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Case No. 4:10-cv-00080-SBA (EMC) A C LI FO dwar Judge E d M. Ch en R NIA ____________________________________ RDERE S SO O IED IT I The Honorable Edward M. Chen ODIF A States United S M Magistrate Judge D RT U O NO RT H

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?